DINESH KUMAR Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I shall dispose of RSA-4891-2016(O&M) and RSA-6865-2016(O&M) filed on behalf of appellant - Dinesh Kumar.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Ramesh Kumar had brought a suit against Dinesh Kumar seeking possession of agricultural land bearing khewat no.238 khatoni no.290-294 kita 85 measuring 458 kanals 1 marla to the extent of 172/9161 share i.e. 8 kanals 12 marlas situated at village Pota, Sub Tehsil Kanina, District Mohindergarh, as per jamabandi for the year 2004-05 by specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 17/6/2009.

(3.) As per the version of the plaintiff, the defendant had entered into an agreement to sell such land with him on 17/6/2009 @ Rs.7.00 lakhs per acre for total sale consideration of Rs.7,52,500.00 receiving Rs.4.00 lakhs as earnest money; the balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed up to 31/7/2009; the written agreement had been scribed by Sh.Prithvi Chand Sharma, Deed Writer, signed by the defendant in presence of witnesses, who had also put their signatures thereon; at the time of entering into agreement, possession of the suit land was handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff, however the defendant had taken loan on suit property from GGB Sehlang and to get the suit land free from encumbrance, he demanded money from the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff paid Rs.3.00 lakhs to the defendant vide cheque No.329651 in presence of witnesses Pahlad Singh, Leelu Ram and Ram Chander; on the last date fixed for execution and registration of the sale deed i.e. on 31/7/2009, the plaintiff along with balance sale consideration amount and expenses for execution and registration of the sale deed remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Mohindergarh till 5:00 p.m. and waited for defendant but he did not come there; the plaintiff got his presence marked in the shape of a sworn affidavit before Sub Registrar, Mohindergarh; thereafter on 1/8/2009, the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant through counsel Sh.DV Yadav calling upon him to get the sale deed executed and registered on 10/8/2009; again the defendant did not appear in the office of Sub Registrar, Kanina on that date, though the plaintiff remained present there; the defendant rather threatened to interfere in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and to alienate the same, giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to bring the suit in question.